Change to food labels could foil shoppers

Shoppers would find it harder to quickly compare foods and make healthy choices under a proposal by NSW Health to change nutrition labelling rules, consumer groups say.

The department wants to relax the strict requirements for nutrition information panels to make enforcement of the food code easier for its officers.

The change would allow more imported foods to be sold without labelling changes, and the relaxed standard would also apply to local food manufacturers.

Food Standards, the national authority that sets the code, says this allows consumers to easily make informed choices. A survey by the authority last year found that 66 per cent of shoppers refer to the nutrition panel.

NSW Health wants the code to allow more flexibility in the ordering of the "per serve" and "per 100 grams" columns presentation, the order in which nutrients appear and the terms used on a label.

A spokesman for NSW Health's food division, Bill Porter, said

that in some cases the difference between what a label said and what the law required was "marginal".

It also caused inconvenience for companies exporting food to Australia.

But the Australian Consumers' Association opposes the change, saying it would make product comparison more difficult.

Its food policy officer, Clare Hughes, said

the nutrition panel was the most important label item to help shoppers make healthy choices. But surveys had shown consumers already had difficulty using it, often confusing "per serve" and "per 100g".

"With the advent of health and nutrient claims, consumers will increasingly rely on the [panel] to determine the truth behind the hype on the front of the label," Ms Hughes said.

The Dietitians' Association of Australia is also opposed to relaxing nutrition labelling for Australian and New Zealand food manufacturers on the grounds it would lead to consumer confusion, said Linda Hodge, who chairs the group's Food Standards advisory committee.

A separate review by Food Standards five years ago had decided against voluntary ordering of nutrients because of the potential to confuse elderly consumers, among others.